Socionics describes the dichotomies and the functions somewhat differently than MBTI. Therefore there is not necessarily a 1:1 correspondence between MBTI and socionic type. The J/P switiching that Zarathustra mentioned works some but not all of the time. With MBTI INTPs, I've noticed that about half of them identify best with socionics INTp and the other half identify best with socionics INTj. A small fraction identify best with another socionics type, usually ENTp.
I recommend this site as an introduction to socionics, particularly the section on Model A.
The two theories are really very different from each other. Socionics has both benefited and suffered from the Russians willingness to delve into subjects that most of the rest of europe would write of as twoddle. There are a lot of people over there who still put a lot of faith in astrology and card readers.
When Jungs ideas about the functions caer out, they were largely ignored in the rest of the world, but the Russians snatched them up and they started to develop behind the Iron Curtain. Jungs thoughts got mixed to together with ideas about information processing and superstitious beliefs like palmistry. You can see that in "visual identification", the belief that you can type people by the way they walk, you the shape of their foreheads and other such things. It a well developed theory, but it's foundations are a bit shaky.
I've said it in the past that it reminds me of the geocentric modal of the universe, when people though the sun and the planets revolved around the Earth. Astronomers had been tweaking the theory for a long time, and they could get quite accurate predictions out of it, despite the huge error right at the centre of the idea. When the heliocentric modal was first proposed, it's numerical predictions weren't as good, despite being closer to reality. It was only when they realised the orbits were supposed to be elipsical, rather than circles, that it became superior.
MBTI isn't a great deal better, as far as I am concerned. Myers wanted to create a theory that could be used to bring people together. Hence MBTI insists on describing everyone in the best light. Here is the problem - the theory only descibes psychologically well adjusted people, but such people don't need the help of psychologist to live their lives. Hence the theory only applies to people who have no use for it. That's aside from he issue of whether or not you think it even works for them.
The bigger issue is that people know that not everyone is wonderful and once they've read MBTI theory and half understood, they go of and try to fill in the gaps to explain all the fucked up assholes in the world. Usually by accusing them of being SJs or ESFPs, because everyone knows those types are inferior.Hence the net is full of MBTI-esque crap that mostly seems to exist to reafirm pre-existing prejudices or give the user a sense of superiority.
hat said, I agree with Indy, Function Theory is pretty good. I just want to divorce it from socionics and MBTI! And let people know that the orbits are elipses, not circles.
That said, I agree with Indy, Function Theory is pretty good. I just want to divorce it from socionics and MBTI!
But MBTI is function theory; it's just one specific version of function theory...
The Justice Fighter
XXXX - XwX Xdw XwX sx/so - Neutral Good
"I trust what you are doing though…I just see it a little differently.
I don’t see it as you stepping away from the fire. I see it as the fire directing your course.
No matter how airy or earthy or watery you become... to many of us you will always be...a super nova."
"Behind these gates of seeming warmth sits, loosely chained, a fierce attack dog. Perhaps not crazy, but dangerous"
Yes, just like your middle aged, overweight, sweaty, balding Uncle who looks at teenage girls the wrong way is part of the family, but you'd rather they weren't.
You know, I actually have a handsome uncle who is very sweet, but one day we were in a Mexican restaurant and he was feeding me a bite of his food, and directly afterward he asked me if I had any cute friends. My mother also informed me that he was leering at girls inappropriately young for him following seperation from his wife.
In this case, I'm freaked out by the behavior, but still love my uncle and want him to be part of the family. It's more like I would deny that we were related if he did shit like that in public.
"Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul." - Edward Abbey
depends who you ask. to me they are the same functions. i actually prefer the socionics function descriptions to those found in typology associated with mbti. the very basic truth is that our descriptions are language, we all interpret that language differently, and it is very very very very difficult to bring to light the invisible, imperceptible processes of consciousness.
with that said, they have both contributed to how i internally define the functions, and i see no obstacles that says they must be separated. therefore, the j/p switch for introverts makes perfect sense, and everything seems to flow smoothly in the transition back and forth.
alright... so i've decided i'm an SEI in socionics... which is still an ISFp... and i'm an ISFP in mbti.
however, i noticed this:
in mbti, i'm Fi/Se...
in socionics, i'm Introverted Sensing/Extroverted Ethics.
this means, the definitions of the functions ARE different. but they both still describe me well... just using different definitions and terms.
so, socionics Se isn't the same as mbti Se. and so forth.
The definitions are close in some cases, like Ne, and different in others, like Si. This is simplifying it, but Socionics Si is more about being guided by your own physical comfort factor. While Se is about making impact on your environment, pushing situations, all for the objective of attaining something outside in the environment. Rather than appreciating "sensing" in the sense of what feels good, Se types feel good through acquisition and influence.
Fi is about having a static, individualized personal attitude/ethical stance on things and people around you. Fe is about lifting the mood of those around you. Those ISFps who care to lift environmental mood and present a more inclusive, easy going disposition to others would be ISFp. Not all MBTI ISFPs are like that though. Those who have a more individualistic position of ethics that favors and excludes others, regardless of what the group wants them to do, would probably be ISFj (or maybe some other Fi type).